nLab orthogonality

Redirected from "orthogonal complement".
Contents

Contents

(This entry describes two distinct notions, one in the theory of inner product spaces, and the second in a more purely category theoretic context.)

In inner product spaces

Two elements x,yx,y in an inner product space, (V,⟨−,−⟩)(V, \langle -,-\rangle), are orthogonal or normal vectors, denoted x⊥y,x \perp y, if ⟨x,y⟩=0\langle x,y\rangle = 0.

In category theory

Definition

Two morphisms e:A→Be:A\to B and m:C→Dm:C\to D in a category are said to be orthogonal, written e⊥me\perp m, if ee has the left lifting property with respect to mm, i.e. if in any commutative square

A →e B ↓ ↓ C →m D \array{ A & \overset{e}{\to} & B\\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ C & \underset{m}{\to} & D}

there exists a unique diagonal filler making both triangles commute:

A →e B ↓ ↙ ↓ C →m D \array{ A & \overset{e}{\to} & B\\ \downarrow & \swarrow & \downarrow \\ C & \underset{m}{\to} & D}

Given a class of maps EE, the class {m|e⊥m∀e∈E}\{m | e\perp m \;\forall e\in E\} is denoted E ↓E^{\downarrow} or E ⊥E^\perp. Likewise, given MM, the class {e|e⊥m∀m∈M}\{e | e\perp m \;\forall m\in M\} is denoted M ↑M^{\uparrow} or ⊥M{}^\perp M. These operations form a Galois connection on the poset of classes of morphisms in the ambient category. In particular, we have ( ⊥(E ⊥)) ⊥=E ⊥({}^\perp(E^\perp))^\perp = E^\perp and ⊥(( ⊥M) ⊥)= ⊥M{}^\perp(({}^\perp M)^\perp) = {}^\perp M.

A pair (E,M)(E,M) such that E ⊥=ME^\perp = M and E= ⊥ME = {}^\perp M is sometimes called a prefactorization system. If in addition every morphism factors as an EE-morphism followed by an MM-morphism, it is an (orthogonal) factorization system.

Orthogonality of morphisms to objects

A morphism e:A→Be:A\to B is said to be (left) orthogonal to an object CC, written e⊥Ce\perp C (equivalently : CC is right orthgonal to ee), if for any morphism A→CA \to C

A →e B ↓ C \array{ A & \overset{e}{\to} & B \\ \downarrow && \\ C }

there exists a unique morphism B→CB \to C making the following diagram commute:

A →e B ↓ ↙ C. \array{ A & \overset{e}{\to} & B \\ \downarrow & \swarrow & \\ C \mathrlap{\,.} }

If the category we are working with has a terminal object 11, this is equivalent to saying that e⊥!e \perp ! where !:C→1! : C \to 1 is the unique morphism to the terminal object. Abusing notation, we often write E ⊥E^\perp for the collection of objects CC which are right orthogonal to each morphism in EE. We sometimes refer to E ⊥E^\perp as the (right) orthogonal complement of EE.

Examples

  • Of course, any orthogonal factorization system gives plenty of examples. The ur-example is that e⊥me\perp m in Set (or actually, any pretopos) for any surjection ee and injection mm.

  • A strong epimorphism in any category is, by definition, an epimorphism in ⊥(Mono){}^\perp(Mono), where MonoMono is the class of monomorphisms. (If the category has equalizers, then every map in ⊥(Mono){}^\perp(Mono) is epic.) Dually, a strong monomorphism is a monomorphism in (Epi) ⊥(Epi)^\perp.

  • If 𝒞\mathcal{C} is a category, interesting full subcategories 𝒟⊆𝒞\mathcal{D} \subseteq \mathcal{C} are often usefully characterized as the orthogonal complement of some collection of morphisms. In fact, if 𝒟\mathcal{D} is a reflective subcategory of 𝒞\mathcal{C}, then we always have 𝒟=E * ⊥\mathcal{D} = E_\ast^\perp where E *={C→η CiLC∣C∈𝒞}E_\ast = \{ C \xrightarrow{\eta_C} iL C \mid C \in \mathcal{C}\} (where we write i:D→Ci : D \to C for the inclusion, LL for the left adjoint, and η:1 𝒞→iL\eta : 1_{\mathcal{C}} \to iL for the unit of the adjunction), but typically we already have 𝒟=E ⊥\mathcal{D} = E^\perp for some much smaller collection E⊆E *E \subseteq E_\ast. It is often convenient to think about 𝒟\mathcal{D} in this way for some such well-chosen set EE.

  • Conversely, the orthogonal subcategory problem for a class of morphisms Σ\Sigma in a category CC asks whether the full subcategory Σ ⊥\Sigma^\perp of objects XX orthogonal to Σ\Sigma is a reflective subcategory. Here we define f⊥Xf \perp X to mean f⊥!:X→1f \perp !: X \to 1

    The orthogonal subcategory problem is related to localization. Suppose Σ ⊥\Sigma^\perp is indeed a reflective subcategory; let r:C→Σ ⊥r: C \to \Sigma^\perp be the reflector (the left adjoint to the inclusion i:Σ ⊥→Ci: \Sigma^\perp \to C). Certainly rr sends arrows in Σ\Sigma to isomorphisms in Σ ⊥\Sigma^\perp. Indeed, if f:A→Bf: A \to B belongs to Σ\Sigma, then the inverse to r(f):r(A)→r(B)r(f): r(A) \to r(B) is the unique arrow extending 1 r(A)1_{r(A)} along r(f):r(A)→r(B)r(f): r(A) \to r(B) to an arrow g:r(B)→r(A)g: r(B) \to r(A), using the fact that r(A)r(A) belongs to Σ ⊥\Sigma^\perp.

type of subspace WW of inner product spacecondition on orthogonal space W ⊥W^\perp
isotropic subspaceW⊂W ⊥W \subset W^\perp
coisotropic subspaceW ⊥⊂WW^\perp \subset W
Lagrangian subspaceW=W ⊥W = W^\perp(for symplectic form)
symplectic spaceW∩W ⊥={0}W \cap W^\perp = \{0\}(for symplectic form)

Last revised on June 29, 2025 at 21:11:11. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.